text:
What should pilots do if they observe illegal activity onboard an aircraft?
So Justin Bieber was in the news again a couple of days ago:
Pilots on Justin Bieber’s Plane Had to Wear Masks Because of Pot Smoke
What are pilots legally obligated to do in a situation like this where the passengers (allegedly) are doing drugs or any other illegal activity?
Notify ATC, call 911, or land immediately?  Are any of these required or can you tell them to stop and if they comply you are good?
Are there any good recommendations on how to handle the passengers?

Take out their baseballs bats and beat the pathetic little runt to a pulp?  Job done?

Probably they did start this petition ;)

According to the report the pilots did everything they reasonably could.

FAR 91.19 says:

§ 91.19
      Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs  or substances.
      (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
  operate a civil aircraft within the United States with
  knowledge that narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or
  stimulant drugs or substances as defined in Federal or State statutes
  are carried in the aircraft.
      (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or
  substances authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by
  any Federal or State agency.

So the FAA seems to say that if you know about it than you should not take the flight. This makes it seem that if you started to smell pot smoke while you flying you now have knowledge of it and should take some action. Also FAR 91.17 says:

§ 91.17
      Alcohol or drugs.
      (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—
      (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
      (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
      (3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
      (4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol
  per deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
      (b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner
  or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of
  drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in
  that aircraft.
      (c) A crewmember shall do the following:
      (1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate the alcohol concentration in the blood or breath, when—
      (i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and
      (ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to investigate a suspected violation of State or local law
  governing the same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by
  paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.
      (2) Whenever the FAA has a reasonable basis to believe that a person may have violated paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this
  section, on request of the FAA, that person must furnish to the FAA
  the results, or authorize any clinic, hospital, or doctor, or other
  person to release to the FAA, the results of each test taken within 4
  hours after acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates
  an alcohol concentration in the blood or breath specimen.
      (d) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a person may have violated paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that
  person shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the
  Administrator, or authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other
  person to release to the Administrator, the results of each test taken
  within 4 hours after acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that
  indicates the presence of any drugs in the body.
(e) Any test information obtained by the Administrator under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section may be evaluated in determining a
  person's qualifications for any airman certificate or possible
  violations of this chapter and may be used as evidence in any legal
  proceeding under section 602, 609, or 901 of the Federal Aviation Act
  of 1958.

This means that as the pilot you need to stay sober and this likely why the pilots of the aircraft donned their (I'm assuming oxygen) masks. This however, is only the Federal Aviation Regulations. That is, Title 14 (Aeronautics and Space) of the Code of Federal Regulations. So even though the FAA might take a blind eye to you if your passengers had marijuana or cocaine or some other illegal substance and you had no knowledge it still doesn't mean that Federal, State, or local law enforcement couldn't try to nail you on possession charges. I would say pretty safely that as the pilot as soon as you find out there are illegal drugs on board it is your obligation to reduce exposure to the crew and to discontinue flight as soon AS SAFELY possible.

There's a legal obligation per the FARs, but then there is a flight safety obligation that trumps the FARs.  Right?  For safety of flight, violate away.  This assumes of course the crew did not know about the drugs before wheels up.  Once wheels up, safety takes precedence...at least in my view.

Well yeah, obviously you wouldn't ditch the aircraft or something. I'm just saying once you know that you are illegal it's time to land the plane. I'll bold the part where I said AS SAFELY as possible.

91.17 seems like a bit of a stretch here, since the crew wasn't the one taking the drugs (and it might even "cloud" the issue here ;-) ).  So the reg says that we can't "operate" the aircraft, but what about the rest of the question? Are we required to report it?

There is nothing in the FARs that I know of about reporting it. If you do inhale (no Bill Clinton jokes please) though I think 91.17 applies..

I think a lot would depend on the type of illegal activity observed.  For example, if someone was getting injured or worse, that would mean the crew would need to take immediate and aggressive action, which would include possibly putting themselves in some danger to protect the victim, at least to a certain degree.  That said, getting the plane down safely would be higher priority for safety all the way around so protecting the victim needs to be weighed against the risk of getting injured to the point the pilot can no longer fly the plane.
In the Bieber's case, escalating the situation by trying to intervene would only create risk of the crew being injured and then unable to bring the plane down with no real upside.  Putting out a warning, then proceeding to a suitable airport immediately would seem to be the most prudent course of action.

On certain charter flights (professional sports teams) when the passengers get too rowdy the crew sometimes "adjusts" the cabin altitude.

@DanPichelman:  Is there any reliable source for that?  Although a decrease in pressure (and available oxygen) can generally make people more drowsy, it can also enhance the effects of alcohol, and impair what little judgement/self control rowdy passengers have left.   It seems to me that decreasing cabin pressure would be a mixed bag, with unpredictable results, and therefore, not advised.

I'm not sure that I follow the difference between what you are saying that the pilots should do in your first -vs- second paragraph.  In both you say to proceed to a suitable airport immediately?

Oh, I was trying to separate where, if I were the pilot, I would chose to stay in the cockpit and fly to a destination so as not to either escalate the situation risking injury and perhaps a pilotless plane versus when I would risk that if someone were in trouble.  I didn't write that out well, it appears.

@DanPichelman: Isn't the change in cabin pressure going to affect the FAs and the pilots too? I don't think the pilots would want to don their masks just to reduce the cabin pressure for rowdy pax.

@shortstheory: I don't know about now, but I've read about incident from war time when pilots climbed their C-47/DC-3 up to FL240 for this reason (from FL190 they were flying already anyway because it was the MSA so pilots had oxygen anyway). If the pilots decide to do this, they will don their oxygen masks; there does not seem to be much problem with that. FAs can either come to cockpit and take oxygen there or use the portable oxygen that is available in the galley (secretly so the pax don't notice).

@abelenky - I heard it from an acquaintance who worked as a flight attendant on those charters. She spoke from personal experience.  IIRC, she said it tended to encourage the pax to take a nap.    However, that conversation was a long time ago and I may have the details (or all of it!) wrong.

@JanHudec: My concern is that O2 generators on planes aren't reusable and will have to be replaced after use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

@shortstheory: It depends. Large planes actually have pressurized containers (see Accident: Qantas B744 near Manila on Jul 25th 2008, large hole in fuselage at FL290). But I suppose in the case Dan talks about they adjusted the cabin altitude just below the threshold where the masks would go out (around 13000 ft/4000 m). That is not enough to knock anybody out, but it is enough to make them feel tired unless they are acclimatised. The only case I read of was unpressurised plane without passenger oxygen and FL240 - those were acclimatised.

Disclaimer: I am neither aviator nor lawyer.
I don't think there is any special law regarding illegal activity on board of an aircraft. So:

If the activity creates a safety risk, the commander should do whatever they evaluate as the safest way to continue or end the flight. Flying the aircraft is a priority, but if lives of the pilots are in danger, they should do whatever they can to defend themselves including extreme manoeuvres (like FedEx 705) or the reduction of cabin altitude mentioned in the comments (passenger oxygen masks will fall out automatically, but one can't move around cabin while breathing from those, so it still might provide useful help).
Otherwise it's just the general criminal law that applies. Most jurisdictions require that anybody who finds about serious crime reports it except if they believe their close relative might have committed it. This obligation applies to murder (including attempted) and treason and might apply to other crimes depending on the country. For international flights the country of operator should be applicable, but the legal terms unfortunately seem to be a mess.
As to how you report it, the most efficient way would be to tell ATC that you had a crime on board and request police to meet you on landing. Unless you can't do that because the offender would hear it and endanger the aircraft more.
Whether to land immediately depends on the same concern. Expedient landing will tip the offender that they are going to be arrested and they may fight. There was recently a case when police found who committed a murder, but he just boarded a plane from Vienna to New York. They told the crew, but elected to continue the flight so he didn't suspect they know about him though it made it more difficult for the justice than arresting him on the EU ground.


text:
What are airline "flag" and "supplemental" operations?
I constantly see regulations which refer to "flag" and "supplemental" operations.  For example:

14 CFR 121 — OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
Subpart Q—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC OPERATIONS
Subpart R—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS: FLAG OPERATIONS
Subpart S—FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS: SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

What exactly are they and how are they different from "normal" Part 121 operations?  I can't seem to find them defined in Part 121 or 1.1 (definitions).

Part 121 certificated carriers are given specific permission within their Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) to conduct one or more of those three types of operations -- Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental.
The OP asked: how are these different than "normal" Part 121 operations. The answer is: they're not. A "normal" 121 operation must be operated under one of those three types, with slightly different rule requirements for each.
Each is defined in Part 110.2. (the previous reference to 119.3 is out of date) The gist of it is as Shawn said: US-to-US location is a domestic operation, US-to-nonUS location is a flag operation, and all-cargo or "large aircraft charters" are a supplemental operation. These are not exact, and there are exceptions and legalese within the 110.2 page-long definitions for each one. Please read the FAR for the complete definition.
Each individual flight needs to be released and operated according to the rules of the operation type that is applicable to that specific flight.
Airline themselves are not "domestic" or "flag" or "supplemental" (per definition), but it is common to call an airline a "domestic airline" who only has OpsSpecs approval to conduct domestic operations. But that is not a legal term.  Most (I suspect all?) of the majors are OpsSpec'd to conduct all three types of operations.
Let's take an example of Alaska Airlines. An aircraft is scheduled for (important) and operated on a flight from Seattle to LAX. This flight meets the definition of a domestic operation, so all of the "domestic" rules would apply to this flight. That same aircraft is then operated on a flight to Mexico City. This would be a "flag" operation, and so some slightly different rules would apply to how this flight is dispatched, released, and operated. (alternate airport requirements, fuel requirements, and how much crew rest was required prior to the flight, etc. are slightly different)
Finally, the Washington State Huskys football team charters an Alaska Airlines aircraft to transport them to the Rose Bowl. The flight from Seattle to Los Angeles would be operated under "supplemental" rules. The previous paragraph's example domestic flight might have used the same exact routing, the same exact crew, and the same exact aircraft. But the rules for this specific flight were slightly different, due to the different type of operation being conducted.
The air carrier, "Alaska Airlines", is not a "Domestic Airline", nor a "Flag Airline", nor a "Supplemental Airline"... rather, the company's certificate grants them permission to conduct all three types of operation.

As far as I know, Domestic would apply to US operations of scheduled routes.
Flag Carriers would be scheduled international operations that originate in the US or a territory and terminate outside of the US. Those airlines typically fall under the rules of the state in which they were registered. So a US airline flying to the UK would be a US Flag carrier. Some operations to Canada are exempted and treated like a domestic flight.
But it would also apply to an airline operated by the State under the national flag of that country. I don't think we really have many official Flag Carriers in the US (other than standard international operations), but there are a few overseas, or there used to be. Ex: British Airways was the UK Flag Carrier until it became a private company. Same with KLM being the Dutch Flag Carrier.
Supplemental Operations are usually a for-hire operation that doesn't fall under the normal operations of the 121 carrier and are generally unscheduled operations. This would include a passenger charter of an airliner.
FAR 119.3 has the definitions as they apply to US carriers. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol3/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol3-sec119-3.pdf

A flag flight is one that does not begin and end within the contiguous US (excludes Alaska and Hawaii). The rules vary between domestic and flag and include fuel requirements, alternate requirements.  For example, a domestic flight would be LAX TO SFO while a flag flight would be LAX to HNL.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can IPA be used as a FSII with MoGas, particularly with a Peterson STC?
This question established a basis for the use of 100% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) as a Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) in aviation gasoline systems. However, this Cessna Service Letter documents that IPA is not to be used as a FSII with automotive gasoline in Lycoming powered Cessna aircraft, or indeed in any Lycoming aircraft whatsoever, in accordance with Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1070R.
Now, Peterson offers their auto fuel STC for many aircraft, including Lycoming powered Cessnas, allowing the use of certain types of non-ethenol automotive fuels. Peterson is known for being outspoken about the problems with ethanol as an additive in automotive gasoline.
My question is twofold:

firstly, is there any documented basis for the use of IPA as an FSII with any type of automotive gasoline in certified aircraft fuel systems (I am thinking part 23 certified aircraft, to exclude non-certified aircraft); and,
secondly, is there any documentation for the allowance or prohibition of the use of IPA as an FSII with a Peterson auto fuel STC?

I didn't know India Pale Ale could inhibit icing

@TomMcW Now you know! The things you can learn on the internet! At least it is useful for something...

@TomMcW .....so long as you don't think drinking IsoPropylAlcohol can make for a fun evening.

I'm pretty sure you would be iced after doing so, @curious_cat!

@TomMcW: It probably actually could serve as a (weak) icing inhibitor (if your aircraft's fuel system isn't soluble in ethanol), due to the ethanol content lowering its freezing point, and the effect could be strengthened considerably by fractional freezing (cooling the IPA until ice starts to crystallise out, and then picking the icebergs off the top and throwing them away) to concentrate the ethanol further.

Oxygenates, which includes alcohol, are not allowed in gasoline used in aircraft even with a special type certificate, not even airplanes certified to use MoGas. MTBE is the one oxygenate that is approved.
Gasoline sized hydrocarbons do not need freeze protection. Up to 1% anhydrous IPA (from a sealed bottle) can be used to clear an acute moisture issue, but the fuel should be consumed asap, IPA should not be a regular blend additive and certainly not be stored after adding to the tank.
The reason alcohol is not allowed is that it creates more far more problems than it solves. Alcohol is strongly attracted to water which helps IPA absorb small amounts of free moisture from the fuel system but it will also absorb moisture from humid air. A very small amount of which (1-2% moisture to total gasoline) will cause the alcohol to separate from the hydrocarbon portion creating an aqueous layer that at low altitudes will cause erratic power surges or completely stop the engine and at higher altitudes is insufficient to prevent ice in the fuel lines.
Meanwhile the octane rating of the remaining hydrocarbon mix will be severely degraded as alcohol containing gasoline is reliant on the alcohol as an anti-detonation additive.
Adding more alcohol to overcome the moisture issue by brute force will reduce the usable energy of the fuel. (joules per kg, alcohol has only 0.6 times the energy of petroleum per Kg) Up to 5% alcohol improves burn efficiency slightly more than it reduces specific energy, plateaus at about 10%, then the reduced energy outweighs any improved efficiency. Of course weight matters to aircraft.
If the plane is stored for a few months, the separated aqueous layer can cause substantial corrosion and schmoo in the system. I wish I had taken pictures of the tank and carburetor of the motorcycle I just rebuilt after sitting in a garage for a year to show what happens with gasohol, and on the flip side I have zero alcohol gasoline that can sit for years.

NOTICE: Isopropyl alcohol in amounts not to exceed 1% by volume can be
  added only to aviation fuel(not automotive fuel) to prevent ice
  formation in fuel lines and tanks. Although  approved  for use  in
  Lycoming  engines,  do  not  use  isopropyl alcohol in the aircraft
  fuel systems unless approved by the aircraft manufacturer.

Source PDF from Lycoming, which also specifies oxygenates shall be limited to 1%.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is an Airline?
What is a good definition for the term "Airline"?
The term is used extensively, and it's meaning is well understood at the one end of the spectrum: air carriers flying passengers on large aircraft on scheduled routes. However, the other end of the spectrum seems to be far less defined or understood. This question is a good case in point: Why don't we have helicopter airlines?
I am primarily interested in exploring the term from an operational standpoint, not a entitative standpoint, but both are valid.
I am familiar with the FAA's 14 CFR 1.1 definitions of Air Carrier and Commercial Operator, but I am not aware of any FAA provided definition of Airline. I am asking this definition from my background of knowledge of FAA regulations. However, I would be interested in an answer that would be valid worldwide.
Criteria to consider include the following, all of which apply to Air Carrier operations (some of these criteria overlap):

A Single pilot company, vs a multiple pilot company
Passenger carriage vs freight
Scheduled vs on-demand
§135, vs §125, vs §121, etc.
Aircraft category— fixed wing vs rotorcraft
Aircraft size— number of passenger seats, pounds of cargo payload
Common carriage vs non-common carriage or contract carriage

Are you wanting the legal definition, or a colloquial one?

@RonBeyer Is there a legal definition, and if so, what is its applicability? The operator, the operation, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978?

What are some of the grey areas on the other end of the spectrum that you're worried about?  Air freight, including air postage, air taxi, charter flights, aerial tours, and volunteer charity flights are some examples.  Also, note that compensation and "commerical" operations can have very complex definitions (see http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/30948/could-a-private-pilot-violate-commercial-rules-if-there-is-no-compensation-at)

The common definition for me: An airline is, by metonymy, a company that operates airlines, the latter airline being the infrastructure and people in place to support the operations: ticket sales, aircraft, airfields, ground operations, maintenance, crews. At the beginning of airlines it also included the navigation aids (radio, lighting) and rescue. American airlines would be a reference to the company operating routes in Americas. It's to compare with railways (e.g. Zambia Railways).

@mins I would say the word "airline", as is much of aviation terminology, is borrowed directly from nautical terminology. Ocean travel companies were called "lines" long before air travel was invented. I don't think the word was ever understood to mean the infrastructure. The motonymy occurred in the previous industries. That borrowing from sea travel, as George Carlin pointed out, resulted in English speakers saying they're getting on a plane. Whereas I would much prefer to be in the plane.

@TomMcW: Agreed. The inclusion of infrastructure and technical stopovers could be particular to air industry as, contrary to a sea line, there was no local ports to reuse. "Opening" a new line required to build airfields. When crossing South Atlantic, companies had also to operate a couple of avisos along the route, to be ready to rescue crews, mail and planes.

Manx2, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/a-virtual-airline-a-real-crash/?_r=0 seems relevant...

According to ICAO atleast, airline refers only to international operations. From the Convention on International civil Aviation:

For the purpose of this Convention the expression:
a) "Air service" means any scheduled air service performed by aircraft for the public transport of passengers, mail or cargo.
b) "International air service" means an air service which passes through the air space over the territory of more than one State.
c) "Airline" means any air transport enterprise offering or operating an international air service.

So, the correct term for common usage (atleast according to ICAO) is 'air service'. Note that ICAO is more concerned with international operations. However, even the FAA definition is more or less on these lines (though it doesn't say anything about 'airline').

Air Carrier — a person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air transportation. This includes an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, governmental entity, and a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of such entities.

The dictionary definition however, looks more apt for the common usage:

An organization providing a regular public service of air transport on one or more routes.

ICAO's "international" definition is not helpful to this discussion since their explicit purpose is to organize international operations, which is does not encompass the scope of this question.

Just a suggestion:
"A company that generates revenue by transporting people or cargo by aircraft."

I don't think revenue even needs to be in there, but scheduled/semi-scheduled fixed routes do. The dictionary definition of "an organization providing a regular public service of air transport on one or more routes." seems correct. Charter airlines (without fixed routes) are a thing, but are a specific subset of a simple "airline"

This can be a good starting point, but it's slightly ambiguous.  Would air taxi or charter flights (Part 135 under the FAA) count under this definition?  What about aerial tours?


text:
What does the FAA mean by "Make and Model" of aircraft?
Short Version: How does the FAA define the terms "make" and "model" in regulatory documents, particularly in the context of referring to pilot experience in aircraft?

Long Version
In  14 CFR 135—and doubtless elsewhere in 14 CFR—the FAA occasionally uses the terms "make", "model", or some combination of these, such as "make and model".
Specifically, §135 gives requirements for pilot experience to be eligible for certain operations, such as to operate under "eligible on-demand" rules or to act as PIC.
See, for example, 14 CFR 135.4, "Applicability of rules for eligible on-demand operations":

(3) Pilot operating limitations. If the second in command of a fixed-wing aircraft has fewer than 100 hours of flight time as second in command flying in the aircraft make and model and, if a type rating is required, in the type aircraft being flown, and the pilot in command is not an appropriately qualified check pilot, the pilot in command shall make all takeoffs and landings in any of the following situations: [omitted for brevity]
(4) Crew pairing. Either the pilot in command or the second in command must have at least 75 hours of flight time in that aircraft make or model

See also, 14 CFR 135.105, "Exception to second in command requirement: Approval for use of autopilot system":

No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command under this section of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that person has at least 100 hours pilot in command flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be flown and has met all other applicable requirements of this part.

See also, 14 CFR 135.244

(a) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that person has completed, prior to designation as pilot in command, on that make and basic model aircraft and in that crewmember position, the following operating experience in each make and basic model of aircraft to be flown:

In contrast to the foregoing, the FAA often uses the term "type" to refer to the group of aircraft that the pilot must be experienced or trained on. An example of this would be §135.225 (e), where a pilot is required to have logged 100 hours as pilot in command in that type of airplane.

My question is, what does the FAA mean by these terms, and how should we apply them?
I would typically understand the term "make" to refer to the manufacturer: Cessna.
I would typically understand the term "model" to refer to the basic model, without reference to sub-model designations: 172 (but not 172M vs 172R). However, note where the FAA uses the phrase "make and basic model", to make this idea clear, perhaps in contrast to a separate meaning where the word "basic" is omitted.
Type, in reference to pilot certification, seems clearly to refer to all types encompassed by a type rating designation.
To apply this, would a pilot's time in a Cessna Citation 550 Bravo count toward the time required when operating a Cessna Citation 560 Encore? What about in a Cessna Citation 500 or a Cessna Citation 560 Ultra? All of these fall under the same type rating.
Does the FAA offer some guidance on this, or is there a letter of interpretation perhaps?

TL;DR: The make of an aircraft is the name of the designer (for example, Boeing) and the model of an aircraft (also called the type) is the designation for the general design of the aircraft (for example, 737).  It looks like "basic model" is just an older term for "model".
According to FAA Order 8000.71:

c. Aircraft Make. An aircraft make is the name assigned to the aircraft by the manufacturer when it was produced.  In most cases, the aircraft make is the organization common name of the aircraft manufacturer.  If the organization that holds rights to an aircraft design permits another organization to build that aircraft then the aircraft make would be the aircraft name assigned by the organization that holds rights to the aircraft design in most cases.  If an aircraft manufacturer is an amateur construction, then the aircraft make would be the name of the organization responsible for design in most cases.

and

c. Aircraft Model. An aircraft model is an aircraft manufacturer's designation for an aircraft grouping with similar design or style of structure.
(1) The aircraft model listed in the aircraft TC is the designation used by the aircraft manufacturer to distinguish a particular aircraft or is the designation used by a national military or armed force to distinguish a particular aircraft.
(2) If an aircraft manufacturer is amateur construction, then the aircraft model would be the name designated by the organization responsible for the design in most cases.

Also,

(7) Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 1.1 defines "type" and provides the basic classification for aircraft as follows:
"(2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means those aircraft which are similar in design.  Examples include: DC-7 and DC-7C; 1049G and 1049H; and F-27 and F-27F."
Examples: 777
DC-9
Note: Historical policy and documentation may refer to type as "basic model."

The FAA may also consider two different models "similar enough" to require no, or very little, additional training.  Back in my charter days, "Twin Cessna" was a single checktide with only minimal ground training for differences between a 310, 414, and 421.

@ACpilot, but my question is, would an SIC have to log 100 hrs in the 421 specifically, in order to be have the privilege of making landings to destination analysis airports under eligible on-demand rules, or did time in the 310 count toward that?

@sean So my reading of the FAA oder would lead me to believe that the CE-550 Bravo is a model distinct from the CE-560, model, which includes both the Ultra and Encore.

For our operation and our particular POI, twin cessna time was all the same.

The FAA has not defined those terms in §1.1 or elsewhere in the FARs and as such common language definitions are used.  Make would be the manufacturer and model is aircraft family group but as J Walters mentioned not the subgroup.
I would personally define make and model aircraft based on whether or not the type certificate data sheet is the same for those airplanes.  In looking up Piper aircraft PA28 series airplanes, the TCDS includes aircraft from -140 all the way through -201T.
Looking up the TCDS for Citation 500 and 560 and they have the same TCDS.
An Aircoastal Helicopters legal interpretation defines a "basic make and model" as an aircraft the pilot will actually fly.
Most 135 operators will receive a 293 check in a specifc make and model aircraft and if the additional aircraft has the same type rating will then receive differences to the additional aircraft they are going to fly.  The aircraft FSB (flight standardization board) report will list the required differences between make and model aircraft inside each type rating.
The FSB report for the Citation 500 and 560.

Of note, the TCDS for the Citation 500 series also includes the 560XL/XLS/XLS+, which is an entirely separate type rating.


text:
How Does the FAA Define the Dimensions of the Touchdown Zone?
Does the FAA give a regulatory definition of the term "Touchdown Zone" for use within the context of landing operations?

In 14 CFR 91.175 the FAA requires—in certain cases—that pilots must be in a position to land within the "Touchdown Zone":

(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in §91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—
(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

Is this zone explicitly defined? If so, where is the applicable definition found?

No definition is offered in 14 CFR 1.1. However, several uses or definitions of this term do exist in various FAA advisory documents. These uses or definitions are generally similar, but include variances. A few of these include:
AC 91-79A (referencing an obsolete document):

the TDZ is referred to as a point 500-3,000 ft beyond the runway threshold not to exceed the first one-third of the runway

AIM 2–1–5:

3,000 ft beyond the landing threshold or to the midpoint of the runway, whichever is less.

The Pilot Controller Glossary:

The first 3,000 ft of the runway beginning at the threshold.

Also of note, the runway touchdown zone markings on long precision runways generally extend to 3,000 ft beyond the threshold.

Within your question you provided three answers from legitimate referenced sources that all say pretty much the same thing. What do you find lacking in these definitions, and kind of an answer would satisfy you?

… BTW, the differences are not lost on me, but will they really affect your decision to continue or not?  E.g. if the approach is into a 5000' runway will you decide that you are OK to land past the midpoint since you choose to honor the Pilot Controller Glossary definition?  (because while being past both the first third and the halfway point, you are still legally within the first 3000')

@MichaelHall Note that my question is specifically in search of regulatory definitions. Those that I offered above as part of my findings to this point are all advisory at best. Other FAA guidance that was not accepted data included even greater variance, some of which may have been misquotations. Note also that the cases where this definition might be important are relatively narrow.

@MichaelHall  My interest as a pilot is not on how to determine when a go-around is necessary: landing within an appropriate zone is not difficult. The proper definition of the term becomes especially important in the case of instructing or training. For example, I have heard assertions that pilots are required, in everyday operations, to land within a certain narrow margin near the aiming point marker; I believe these assertions are in error. I believe that the answer to my question is that there is no single, regulatory definition.

I follow you.  In these matters I always try to put the burden of proof on those making assertions to back them up.  And I agree with your last sentence, I doubt there is a regulatory definition.  And I don't think we want one either.  Opens pilots up to risk of a flight violation for nothing more than poor technique.  (or for an intentional long landing by a small plane on a big runway that doesn't want a long taxi...)

Being in a position to land within the touchdown zone before continuing the approach does not imply that you must actually touch down within that zone. Only that you could at the moment you start the visual portion of the final approach. (In reference to small aircraft landing long so they can quickly taxi off of the runway.)

Oh and I improved the last part of my answer.

Part 91 operation only requires "The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers". The touchdown zone referenced in 91.175c applies to 135 and 121 operations and they will have clarification in their op specs.(Which are also legally binding FAA approved documents.)
The interpretations I gather indicate that the touchdown zone means different things in different contexts. I would need to search a bit more but touchdown zone elevation as given on approach plates is measured at a specific point, which if I recall is at the aiming point.(1000ft)
For the airport operator, touchdown zone markings are required only for runways with precision approaches. It is 3000 feet, but there must be a minimum length blank space in the middle so the TDZ can be less than 3000ft for shorter runways or runways with displaced thresholds. The specifics use these documents.
AC 150/5340-1m section 2.7
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-139
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-139/subpart-D/section-139.311
And  14CFR 152 incorporates a list of Advisory Circulars by reference(Making those ACs regulatory)
Now these provide some nice bureaucratic circular references to each other. But the key part is that an airport requires a set of approved documents that cover the details of the airport. Those operational documents are binding,(explicitly stated in 14 CFR 139) and it is strongly implied that those operational documents must follow the guidelines of the referenced AC on Standards for Airport Markings.
AH HAA! More applicable to flight operations than airport operations: ([IFR]Procedure design standards) FAA Order 8260.3E appendix B-11

Touchdown zone. The first 3000 feet of runway beginning at the threshold. For helicopter procedures it is identical to the landing area.
Touchdown zone elevation. The highest runway centerline elevation in the first 3000 feet of the landing surface (touchdown zone).
Visual descent point. The VDP is a defined point on the final approach course of a nonprecision straight-in approach procedure from which normal descent from the MDA to the runway touchdown point may be commenced, provided visual reference is established.
Vertical guidance surface. The VGS is a narrow inclined plane centered on the runway centerline that is evaluated for obstructions between the DA/VDP and LTP[landing threshold point] for all straight-in aligned approach procedures.
Visual glide slope indicator. The VGSI is an airport lighting aid that provides the pilot with a visual indication of the aircraft position relative to a specified glidepath to a touchdown point on the runway. PAPI and VASI are examples of VGSI systems.

And so the touchdown zone is indeed the first 3000 feet and touchdown point is essentially the aiming point used for calculating the glide slope of an approach and position of a vasi/papi. I find it interesting that the procedure design guidelines use the touchdown point as the assumption even for visual approaches. Considering there are runways of only 3000 feet there is still some ambiguity regarding "touchdown zone" in the context of 91.175c and 121.651, but both also state "made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers" implying that the touchdown zone is dependent on the individual operation.(ie. If you would normally land before 2000ft then you your the TDZ for your operation is from threshold to 2000ft and you must be able to hit that same goal without getting fancy.)
In addition, the flight planning portion of a part 119 operation (which is what this whole mess is about) will follow explicit touchdown assumptions required in the company op specs. (ie Runway meets required landing length when calculated from the normal glide slope and aiming point with normal flare) And op specs are legally binding.

If you were to study most of order 8260.3 you would find the intent of 91.175c.(I'm not really suggesting you read all of it, it is a tech spec document targeted at a specific group inside the FAA.) A missed approach executed either beyond the missed approach point or below the minimum approach altitude(decision height) is not assured of obstacle clearance during the missed approach procedure in IMC. As such there should be minimal chance of executing a go around once committed to that final piece of the approach. This climb during missed approach is the reason many procedures have high minimums, obstacles on the approach side are not usually the issue.
Along with all of that you get into the interpretations of common law and generalized regulation that expect a pilot to use good judgement in all matters. So then the relevant touchdown zone is that which would be considered reasonable by a majority of experienced pilots. Making the 3000ft specification quite irrelevant to flight operations and only really applicable to surveyors and runway painting.

For students the important bit is probably the supplemental last two paragraphs of my answer.

Found this definition on an FAA website today:

The runway touchdown zone is usually defined as 1000 feet from the runway threshold or 1/3 the total available landing distance. This provides runway “underrun” in case the pilot comes up short of his/her aim point, as well as increased obstacle clearance while on final approach.

Quoting from the document linked: "FLYING LESSONS is an independent product of MASTERY FLIGHT TRAINING, INC." This is an independent product, is not FAA approved or accepted, and is therefor not an authoritative source in answering this question.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can large aircraft go VFR?
Is it legal for large, multi-crew, aircraft (such as the A380 or B747) to go VFR? I would guess it's legal just as any other aircraft. Is this ever done, like during training or test-flights? If it isn't legal, what's the limiting factor?
I'm talking real VFR from take-off to landing, not an VFR-on-top IFR clearance.
As I don't have a spare 747 sitting around waiting for me to take it out for an afternoon spin, I'm interested more in the general sense, is it legal anywhere, and are airlines taking advantage of it?

VFR is mostly staying out of clouds and See-and-Avoid, however the last is kinda hard when you are going 800+ km/h and have a terrible turn radius

During the volcanic ash in Europe a few years ago, Lufthansa transferred a few wide bodies under VFR rules from Munich to Frankfurt, as far as I know, as IFR flights were forbidden. So yes, it's possible.

@ratchetfreak; see-and-avoid still applies to IFR traffic. Depending on airspace (E for example), the controllers will only separate you from other IFR traffic, and it's still your responsibility to see and avoid VFR traffic.

@SentryRaven: that's must've been fun for the pilots!

Is it legal..... Where?  Different countries have different rules and regulations on these things. :)

@Lnafziger; I'm not really looking for regulation texts, as I don't have a spare 747 sitting around waiting for me to take it for a spin, I was just curious if it is legal anywhere. All jurisdictions welcome :)

I'm that case, you may want to change your question to reflect that.   :)  "Is it legal..." it's a wire different question from "Is it legal anywhere...".

For what it's worth, yesterday (in the US) I saw a commercial (Delta) flight land VFR at a class D field. They contacted the tower for a VFR landing clearance and were given it.

I've flown as a passenger on an An-26 into an uncontrolled field, using a grass strip, somewhere in Siberia. That was Aeroflot in the 1980s, and it was routine there (there were over a dozen of their airliners on the ground there with APUs hooked up).

@mah Airlines always fly passenger flights under Instrument Flight Rules, however, they can be cleared for a visual departure, and, if they have the field in sight, a visual approach. They’re still on an IFR flight plan but don’t have to fly the full IFR procedure. That’s probably what you heard.

The FAA treats large airplanes the same as any other airplane when it comes to VFR flight.  They are required to maintain the same distance from clouds, only fly with the same minimum visibility, see and avoid other aircraft, etc.
However, since only IFR flights are allowed above FL180 (without a special exemption), and large turbine airplanes are terribly inefficient at low altitudes, so it doesn't happen very often.
In the US, Part 121 flights have the most restrictions of any of the operating rules, and they have multiple regulations relating to VFR flight, including this one1:

14 CFR 121.611 Dispatch or flight release under VFR.
No person may dispatch or release an aircraft for VFR operation unless the ceiling and visibility en route, as indicated by available
  weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, are and will
  remain at or above applicable VFR minimums until the aircraft arrives
  at the airport or airports specified in the dispatch or flight
  release.

So yes, even if it is operated by a 121 carrier, they are allowed to fly VFR by the regulations.  However, they must also comply with their Operations Specifications and Flight Operations Manuals which will have detailed procedures covering the conditions where it is allowed.
Outside of 121 there are even fewer restrictions on VFR flight.

1 There is also:

§121.347 - Communication and navigation equipment for operations under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage.
§121.349 - Communication and navigation equipment for operations under VFR over routes not navigated by pilotage or for operations under IFR or over the top.
§121.649 - Takeoff and landing weather minimums: VFR: Domestic operations.
§121.667 - Flight plan: VFR and IFR: Supplemental operations.

Is the FL180 cut-off international? I thought it was only because there's airspace A above FL180 (true in the US, not everywhere though). Germany has airspace C from FL100 (mostly) and up and does not necessarily require an IFR clearance, but I don't know if there's an FL180 cutoff.

@roe Well, as I said in my answer this is per the FAA and US rules.  One answer can't possibly cover the legal aspects everywhere in the world. For instance, in the Bahamas VFR is not allowed at night.  I'm sure that there are some countries that require IFR flights in other circumstances as well, and doubt that Class A airspace above FL180 is universal.

Oops, didn't mean to imply anything weird, I was just wondering if there was some other rule you might know about regarding FL180 except for the fact that there's class A above it (in the US).

@roe Airspace designation is left up to the individual ICAO member countries, so could be different.  As you said, it it Class A above 18,000 feet in the USA (which is why I said no VFR) but it could be different in other countries.

To be super technical, flights have to be IFR at or above FL180 and at or below FL600 - above FL600, the airspace reverts to class E, where VFR flight is permitted (although not many aircraft are actually capable of sustained flight above FL600).

@Sean While true, the aircraft that he was asking about are not capable of flight above FL600, so that wouldn't apply!  :)

Generally the airlines operating procedures will only permit IFR operation.
Occasionally non-revenue flights for aircraft positioning etc, will operate VFR for expediency.
I know of one pilot who has delivered old airliners to the Mojave boneyard on a VFR flight from LAX.

Do heavies go VFR? Absolutely, and not only do they go VFR they do carrier breaks as well.
The US Navy has a "scheduled airlines" that ferries personnel and equipment around the continent. Its passenger line uses DC-9's. I was in Beeville, Texas going through advanced jet training in the A4. We were already in the pattern doing carrier pattern touch-and-go's when we heard a DC-9 call at the VFR initial. We were expecting the following call to be for a straight-in VFR approach, and to our amazement we heard, "Tower Heavy 201 for the break." The tower came back quickly, "Break approved."
This was the coolest thing I have ever seen. Absolutely stunning. This big guy comes in to the field at 800 feet and makes the break! I was cheering in the cockpit watching it.

According to Wikipedia, the US Navy retired the last of its DC-9s in 2014. They now use Boeing C-40A Clippers, which are 737-700s.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if they were still using them. It has been a while. I was in Beeville well before 2014 :) I always imagined the pilot was a cross between a fighter pilot, fond of the break, and a P3 pilot not afraid to get the wingtip close the wave tops. Thanks for your comment and contribution,

I didn't know a DC-9 was a heavy.

Yes you are right, and nonetheless he used the call "heavy". Its MTOW is around 120,000 pounds and lands at around 110,000 pounds. That is "large" category. Perhaps he was trying to give us a heads up that if we were in the pattern and landing after him, that we should watch our separation for wake turbulence. We were less than 15,000 pounds. Interesting coming in from approach control, was the pilot using the same call sign? The tower didn't complain.

As far as I know, the size of the aircraft does not matter much. You just cannot plan airline flights (carrying passengers) in VFR.
Although I think, in case the destination airport is uncontrolled and you have VMC (and the airspace class allows), you can cancel IFR and proceed VFR bellow the VFR maximum altitude.
Depending on the country and class of airspace you're flying in, you might also have other limiting factors such as speed (200/250 KIAS) and altitude (18,000/20,000 ft).

See Proteus Airlines Flight 706.

Not any flight carrying passangerd is an arline flight. Even with a big airliner you can have a VFR flight to se around (did happen). You certainly can have VFR flights with a commercial (not ATPL) pilot with paying passengers in smaller planes.

Airlines can definitely fly VFR with passengers. Usually they will only do it when departing or arriving at a non towered field, but they definitely can do it.

I believe if you are operating under part 121, you are IFR always.  I would suspect if you are relocating an airliner and under part 91, you could fly VFR but I would bet the airline would require IFR as their standard operating procedures.

This is not true in the US: Part 121 has provisions for being dispatched under VFR (see @Lnafziger's answer).  An example are the old Continental Express ATRs out of KEWR which routinely flew VFR to avoid delays.

I saw that.  I had thought I read that all 121 went IFR after a few mid-air collisions, but I guess I read that incorrectly.

@casey "This is not true in the US". I thought "part 121" was a section of US federal law? If some assertion about it is "not true in the US", then it's not true at all, right?

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
How long to keep ASRS report?
After submitting a NASA ASRS report, it is returned to the submitter along with the tracking number.  For how long should that packet be retained (in case it is needed during an FAA enforcement action)?

The NBAA Guideance on using the ASRS suggests that possible violations are kept on your record for 5 years. I would try to hold on to reports for at least as long as it takes any enforcement action (or the potential of enforcement action) to fall off of your record, including investigation and enforcement action time, which may add another 12-24 months to that.

This AOPA article, PILOT COUNSEL: TOO LATE, is pertinent as it discusses possible limitations on how long the FAA may delay enforcement action.

Generally the FAA inspectors are supposed to complete their EIR within 75 days of the date they learn of the violation, and regional review should be completed 15 days after that - so you should theoretically hear something from them within 90 days of a violation.
The NTSB's rules of practice governing certificate actions (referenced in that same FSIMS order - 2150.3B) says they can't suspend or revoke your certificate if the violation took place more than 6 months prior to their notifying you (the "stale complaint rule") so generally if you haven't heard from them after 6 months you're probably in the clear and won't need your ASRS stub anymore, but there are exceptions to this that are easy for the FAA to leverage, so holding on to the stubs longer isn't a bad idea.

Personally I believe in holding on to the ASRS stubs forever - I have mine (all 3) in a folder in the back of my filing cabinet, even though the newest one is almost 3 years old now and I'm fairly sure the FAA doesn't care about any of them, but if they do come after me for any of those incidents I know I did the right thing and I can prove it.
More importantly for me though it's a reminder that the point of the ASRS program isn't to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for when we screw up: That's the carrot used to entice us into filing them, but these reports are supposed to serve as an educational tool for other pilots and for us.
Any time I feel the need to file another ASRS report I take the time to look at the ones I filed previously - If I'm making the same mistakes multiple times that's a clue that I should be getting time with a CFI and working on those areas of operation.
Knowing my insurance policy on those incidents is still good if someone dredges them up later is just a bonus, and the stubs don't take up that much room.


text:
Is a "T" (Tango) prefix required before the registration number for Part 135 flights?
After September 11th, the FAA required all Part 135 air carrier flights to prefix their registration number with a "T" and use the "Tango November" prefix on the radio.
Every once in a great while (about once to twice a year) I still hear someone doing this, but surely there are more 135 flights than this.
Is it (or was it ever) required to use the "T" prefix for Part 135 flights?

As I mentioned below, its required to be on the strip, and controllers read everything that's on the strip.  The issue with the pilots/controller's glossary is that it pertains to pilots, not controllers.

Since you're asking if it's required then I believe the answer is no.
First, just to include the information from another answer, the AIM 4-2-4 only says "should", not "must" (my emphasis):

4. Air Taxi or other commercial operators not having FAA authorized call signs should prefix their normal identification with the phonetic
  word "Tango."
EXAMPLE- Tango Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.

Second, the FAA's Joint Order defining ATC regulations says in section 2-4-20 (my emphasis):

Air taxi and commercial operators not having FAA authorized call
  signs. State the prefix “TANGO” on initial contact, if used by the
  pilot, followed by the registration number. The prefix may be dropped
  in subsequent communications

That's the only mention of this prefix in the entire ATC regulations, therefore it's safe to say that controllers don't need the prefix and aren't required to do anything when they hear it.
On the AOPA forums there are a couple of unsupported comments that the prefix was used to give commercial flights priority in the past, and that it's still used for gathering statistics on flights today (although it seems like a very unreliable mechanism for that).

I can't agree with your interpretation of AIM 4-2-4 because by your logic, the aircraft type and digits of the aircraft registration number are also optional, which we know to be untrue, notwithstanding the AIM's definitions of "should" and "must": "3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer’s name, followed by the
digits/letters of the registration number"

AIM 4-2-4, part A.

4. Air Taxi or other commercial operators not having FAA authorized call signs should prefix their normal identification with the phonetic
  word "Tango."
EXAMPLE- Tango Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.

It was pre-911 but not often used. It is just a way for operators who have no callsign to let ATC know that they are a charter operation. If appropriate, it may be dropped after initial contact, just like shortening your tail number.

Why would we want them to know that???  Apart from the AIM recommendation is there any requirement to use it?  Also, do you have a reference for dropping it after initial contact?

I don't know why you'd want them to know. Priority issues maybe? I understand why you'd add a callsign for a lifeguard flight but I don't know why it's relevant that you have a Tango for 135. Also I don't know what "other commercial operators" means, does that include flight schools? Anyway, it's under the same subsection of 4-2-4 that explains how to abbreviate callsigns, so I would assume that it may also be abbreviated. Also a lot of people on airliners.net saying that -if they use it at all- they drop it as long as ATC does as well.

Ummm, I'm fairly certain that ATC doesn't offer 135 flights priority.  ;-)  Other commercial operators would include 121 operators (although I doubt that there are many without a call sign).  Not sure about the flight school!  Anyway, do you know if there is a legal requirement to use it?  That's a big part of the answer that I'm looking for.

@Lnafziger maybe not priority directly, but I know of at least one southest Texas TRACON that tends to ignore calls from GA aircraft when they feel like it.  In this case perhaps "Tango" in front of what would otherwise look like a random GA flight lets controllers like that know they should respond.

The "T" (Tango) designation is required to be used by controllers, as per the Air Traffic Controller's Handbook:

Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications
2−4−20. AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION
Use the full identification in reply
  to aircraft with similar sounding identifications. For other aircraft,
  the same identification may be used in reply that the pilot used in
  his/her initial callup except use the correct identification after
  communications have been established. Identify aircraft as follows:
...

Air taxi and commercial operators not having FAA authorized call signs. State the prefix “TANGO” on initial contact, if used by the
  pilot, followed by the registration number. The prefix may be dropped
  in subsequent communications. EXAMPLE− “Tango Mooney Five Five Five
  Two Quebec.” “Tango November One Two Three Four.”

[emphasis mine]

AIM Section 2-4-2  is a little more difficult to parse because it uses the term should instead of must:

Call signs should never be abbreviated on an initial contact...

3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number.
4. Air Taxi or other commercial operators not having FAA authorized call signs should prefix their normal identification with the phonetic word "Tango."
[emphasis mine]

Since we know item 3 is not optional even though it uses the term should, we must question whether the use of should in item 4 is optional, and it is my belief that not using tango on the initial call up would violate item 1.


text:
Another airplane almost hit me, but an ACAS Resolution Advisory told me to climb first. Now what?
So when a pilot is flying along and suddenly hears a "Climb...  Climb..." Resolution Advisory (RA) from ACAS/TCAS, we are trained to immediately climb to avoid a collision with another aircraft.
There is a reporting requirement in NTSB 830 which states (bold added by me):

49 CFR 830.5 -  Immediate notification
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not
  operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United
  States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most
  expeditious means available, notify the nearest National
  Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office when:
...
(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
  advisories issued either:
(i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules
  flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a
  substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or
(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace.
...

So my questions are:

Is the phrase "compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft" defined somewhere or is there any guidance to say when the report is required?  I.e. is it anytime that we get an RA (even if we visually have the aircraft in sight), only if we actually respond to an RA, or is it if the two airplanes get within a certain distance from each other?
When a report is required, how do we report it and what information is required?  Is there a form that needs to be filled out?

I would expect "immediately and by the most expeditious means available" means a phone call. If possible even while still in flight or indirectly via dispatch, immediately after landing at latest. NTSB will want to secure ATC recordings, and if possible CVR or QAR data from both aircraft and these would be overwritten before anybody got to process any form.

Of course ATC can make phone call easily, so the supervisor on duty should be the first to call NTSB, but they want the pilots to do so as well in case ATC for any reason fails to do so.

@JanHudec Really?  While in flight?  Do you have a reference for that?  Also, if we have to call it seems like they would be getting a lot of phone calls for this....

No, I don't have reference. It's my layman understanding of the sentence, given I expect them to want to get the quick access recorder or cockpit voice recorder.

@JanHudec Okay, I agree that's how it reads but I'm looking for a more official answer which is why I asked the question in the first place!  :)

That's why I only commented.

Normally RA is the last line of defence, so I expect they really want to investigate most of them. However I have heard of cases like where you are cleared to climb to say FL320, there is another plane at FL330 and because you are climbing fast, you get RA at say FL315 to "adjust". In such case the ATC instructions were correct, so that might be the case they don't insist on hearing about. Again, I don't have a reference.

Well, #2 is actually surprisingly easy. At the top middle of the NTSB website, under "Other ways to Contact NTSB" there is an innocuous-looking link that says "Submit a TCAS Notification" (which has you send an email to tcas@ntsb.gov).  Personally I'd follow that up with a phone call to the appropriate regional NTSB office as well, just to be sure you've discharged your obligation under NTSB 830.
The minimum required information for NTSB reporting is described in 49CFR830.6:

Type, nationality, and registration marks of the aircraft;
Name of owner, and operator of the aircraft;
Name of the pilot-in-command;
Date and time of the accident;
Last point of departure and point of intended landing of the aircraft;
Position of the aircraft with reference to some easily defined geographical point;
Number of persons aboard, number killed, and number seriously injured;
Nature of the accident, the weather and the extent of damage to the aircraft, so far as is known; and
A description of any explosives, radioactive materials, or other dangerous articles carried.

There is also a FAA website (www.tcasreports.com) which pilots are encouraged to use for reporting TCAS events - this site is not connected with the NTSB, and would not seem to cover that reporting requirement, but including the information that site asks for in your report to the NTSB would probably be helpful as well.

For #1 things seem a bit murkier: I too could not locate anything from the NTSB or in FAA AC 120-55C that clearly defines "necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision", but broadly I would imagine any Resolution Advisory (RA) is reportable, while Traffic Advisories (TA) would not be.
(The reportability of RAs would seem to be doubly true if you're operating in IMC, where you have no chance of visually assessing the hazard -- Complying with an RA there would seem essential to me.)

Note that AC 120-55C does allow a pilot to disregard a TCAS RA if they're certain that they have visual contact with the aircraft causing the RA - but it also cautions that it's difficult to be that certain:

Unless it is unequivocally clear that the target acquired visually is the one generating the RA and there are no complicating circumstances, the pilot’s instinctive reaction should always be to respond to RAs in the direction and to the degree displayed.

Presumably in a case where you're operating in VMC, it's "unequivocally clear" that you're looking at the aircraft responsible for the RA, and it's "unequivocally clear" that the traffic does not pose a substantial risk of a collision then following the RA is not "necessary to avoid a substantial risk of a collision" (i.e. you wouldn't have to report the incident).
I'd err on the side of reporting those events anyway though: If nothing else it serves to make the NTSB aware that something happened, and if they see a particularly large number of "somethings" in a given area they may take that up with the FAA to try to isolate and address possible underlying causes...

For #1 I was thinking of the times where I have the other airplane in sight and am maintaining visual separation but get an RA. Doesn't seem like it should warrant a report...  As far as #2, I would really like to know if that satisfies the reporting requirement or not.  An email is pretty immediate!  :)

That link on the NTSB's website has been moved to the top middle of the page, under "Other ways to Contact NTSB".


text:
Are crossing restrictions on an ILS/LOC approach mandatory when flying on the glideslope?
Some "ILS or LOC" approaches have crossing restrictions that are shown before and/or after the final approach fix/glideslope intercept.
Are these restrictions for the LOC only approach, or do they also apply when tracking the glideslope?
As an example, KSFO ILS 28L and KSFO ILS 19L (see below) both have crossing restrictions before and after glideslope intercept.
For the fixes after intercept though, notice that NEPIC does not have a '*' next to the crossing restriction (which means "LOC only") while ROGGE does:

There are two situations to consider:

altitude restrictions before the Final Approach Segment
altitude restrictions in the Final Approach Segment

The first case is clear-cut. There is a risk of going outside altitude restrictions if you intercept the glideslope before the published glide slope intercept point, except if noted otherwise. An FAA Information for Operators article states that:

when cleared for an ILS approach, do not descend below published
  step-down altitudes on an ILS final approach course, while outside
  the Final Approach Segment.

The main issue now is whether altitude restrictions are enforceable if you are on the glideslope, inside the Final Approach Segment and it does not state that it only applies to LOC approaches.
Throughout the document, it never refers to stepdown fixes inside the Final Approach Segment, often stating that this is referring to "outside the Final Approach Segment".
A note in the AIM (after 5-4-5.b.4) also states that:

The ILS glide slope is intended to be intercepted at the published
  glide slope intercept altitude. This point marks the PFAF and is
  depicted by the ”lightning bolt” symbol on U.S. Government charts.
  Intercepting the glide slope at this altitude marks the beginning of
  the final approach segment and ensures required obstacle clearance
  during descent from the glide slope intercept altitude to the lowest
  published decision altitude for the approach. Interception and
  tracking of the glide slope prior to the published glide slope
  interception altitude does not necessarily ensure that minimum,
  maximum, and/or mandatory altitudes published for any preceding fixes
  will be complied with during the descent.

To me, this implies that after the published glide slope interception altitude, that it is ensured that these altitudes will be met.
There has also been discussion on another forum about this, though the discussion doesn't provide an authoritative answer to this question.

It seems weird that there is a discrepancy with some approaches having the * past the PFAF, and a few that don't -- I'll take a further look to see if this is just an oversight or actually has specific meaning.

Any luck on the *?

@Lnafziger: nope, but something interesting I found was that on another SFO approach which still has the restriction at NEPIC even though it's an ILS-only approach --  makes me somewhat doubtful about my reasoning, though it would be absurd if the glideslope did not provide adequate clearance.

I've given you the bounty as you have the best answer so far, but am still looking for an answer to the asterisk bit so haven't accepted it yet.  Thanks for all of the effort so far!

The ILS 28L at SFO has been revised. Now all of the ILS or LOC approaches there have the * next to each of the stepdown fixes inside the PFAF. The CAT II approach also does not have any required altitudes inside the PFAF, just a reference altitude.

Closest regulatory thing I could find :
ICAO Doc 8168 Section 4 Arrival and approach procedures

1.7.5 Any constant descent angle shall clear all stepdown fix minimum crossing altitudes within any segment.
5.2.5.1 A stepdown fix may be incorporated in some non-precision approach procedures
5.5.5.2    The  protection  area  assumes  that  the  pilot  does  not  normally  deviate  from  the  centre  line  more  than  half-scale
  deflection  [...]   more  than  half  course  fly-up [...]  could
  place  the  aircraft  in  [...] airspace where loss of protection from
  obstacles can occur.

The writing leads me to believe that a precision approach should not contain stepdown fixes, and that the descent should be a continuous descent from FAP to MAP.
Then again, I could find nothing specific to prevent anyone from inserting an altitude restriction in a precision approach.
I cannot imagine what would be the point of coming down on a constant GS only to level off at 1000' then try to re-capture the GS just two miles from thouchdown. Talk about a stable approach...

Confirming your location/altitude on the ILS against the LOC stepdowns might just help one avoid driving the airplane into the ground on a false glideslope.

That's exactly what the chart does, but with the altitudes printed above the GS on the chart in smaller print.It helps prevent false glideslopes, and it gives you a last chance to catch altimeter setting errors.

On a side note, during my instrument training a few years ago I did have the advisory/unofficial GS on a LNAV+V approach tell me to go below the authorized LNAV altitude.  So, I stopped the descent there, then flew to the next waypoint, then dropped back down to reintercept the advisory GS.  I've flown that approach since and it doesn't do that anymore.  Possible bad data in that month's approach upload.  As far as stable approach, not really a big deal at just 100ish KIAS, but I imagine it would have been exciting in a jet.

At the very beginning of my answer, I would like to remind that everyone should be familiar with the type of charts he is using. A thorough description (PDF) of all charts published by the FAA is available on this FAA website. Refer to page 77 of the PDF document to find the altitudes your question is dealing with. On every flight, you make decisions based on the information you read from those charts.
Basically, once you are cleared for an ILS approach and have intercepted the glidepath in accordance with your clearance, your task is to track the localizer and glideslope, allowing not more than a half-scale deflection, until reaching your DA (or DH on CAT II and III approaches). The exact altitude reading at which the glideslope passes over a specific point is as variable as air density is. This might cause you to be more than 20 feet below the minimum altitudes, but it doesn't matter as all of them past the FAP are for non-precision approaches only.
I don't know how it's handled in the US, also the FAA is using the term FAF - Final Approach Fix - talking about ILS approaches. Technically this is wrong, because the point where you hit the glidepath at a certain altitude is variable - remember the air density. That's why we should talk about a FAP - Final Approach Point.
Anyway, those altitudes should be used when shooting an ILS approach in order to make sure that you didn't fly a side lobe of the glideslope - even if the chances to find one are very remote. On Jeppesen charts you find this 'check altitudes' above the depicted glidepath often at the outer marker (if available) preceeded by the letters GS. On FAA charts these are referred to as recommended altitudes. Find them for example on the chart for the ILS runway 28L approach attached to the question. They are also printed above the glideslope but not underlined, as they are recommended but not mandatory / minimums.
On an ILS approach where you are tracking the localizer, but not the glideslope, because you are too far out and below it, or do not receive it. For example at HEMAN 3100' are important if ATC already cleared you for the approach and you like to descend below the last cleared (maintain xxx feet until established on...) altitude. The latest point where you have to intercept the glide slope is the FAP (FAF according to FAA) but if it is not disagreeing with your clearance you can of course get on glideslope earlier. In this case, prior to the FAP, this minimum altitude is then still mandatory for you (to be at or above) because of reduced glideslope precision at higher distances (it's a cone not a string), but I've never seen someone getting below those minima flying the glide path. In most cases the glideslope will take you quite above these altitudes and you have a continuous and more economic descent into your runway, rather than doing a stepped descent allways being at the minima.
For those who like to take a closer look at Jeppesen's charts, visit their website to find the chart legend (PDF) - take a look at page 55 of this document.

While I'm sure that you are correct, the documents that you link to don't specifically address the issue of the step-down fixes and whether or not they are required after glideslope intercept.  I'm looking for an actual regulation, AIM reference, or something from the FAA that spells it out...

Also, can you explain the * next to the minimum altitude at ROGGE (meaning "LOC only") and the lack of one at NEPIC?  This is inconsistent and leads me to believe that there is a difference.

NEPIC at 1080 can be used as a check altitude when established on the ILS where ROGGE at 1900 can not. The * whith it's remark should height it. That's the way I interpret this as someone who doesn't use FAA charts.

The alt check at NEPIC is already printed above GS. Logic would dictate that they need to print a * near the bigger 1080 under the GS to suggest that stepdown is "LOC only"

The asterisk informs the pilot that this only applies to the Non-Precision LOC approach.  The bolded V is indicating this is a Visual Decision Point (VPD).  See Aeronatical Charts Users Guide.
On some IAPs the decent rate required to reach the minimum decent altitude (MDA) by the missed approach point (MAP) at a distance from the threshold that will allow landing in the touchdown zone will be informed by a VDP. See Descent Rates and Glide Paths for Non-Precision Approachs in the Instrument Procedures Handbook in Chapter 4 (4-37 in 2012) for a discussion of the corresponding math.
In short when on the 19L ILS/LOC between SHAKE and ROGGE you either be above 1900 or on glideslope for obstacle clearance.  Interestingly if you look at the VFR Sectional and plot that approach you'll see that this portion is over the water but in the departure for 30 28l and 28R for OAK.

Think of it this way ... Before the published glideslope interception point (lightning bolt symbol) we must respect all published crossing altitudes even in receiving a glideslope signal.  Once inside the published glideslope interception point the glideslope becomes the primary vertical navigation. Published altitudes inside the glideslope intercept point are there to provide stepdown fixes in the event the GS is inop.
Often we can follow a glideslope before reaching the published intercept point and it will not bust any published crossing altitudes, but this is not always the case. The ILS 24 approaches into LAX are an example (or at least used to be.. I've not flown them for a couple of years now). One could intercept the localizer 30 miles out and get a good stable GS signal but if you followed the GS it would clip the minimum crossing altitudes by a couple of hundred feet. We had enough pilots doing this that ATC asked us to pass the word to all pilots at the airline to pay attention to the minimum crossing altitudes.
Unfortunately this is not all clearly laid out anywhere I have found, (AIM, TERPS, FOM, etc) - the above comments are based on experience...


text:
How should I establish initial contact with ATC after being handed off by another controller?
What is the proper way to contact a new air traffic control facility after you have be instructed to do so by the controller you are currently interacting with?
As a practical example: Here in Northern California, I will typically contact NorCal Approach on 125.4 to get flight following. If I travel ~50 miles north, approach will tell me to contact Oakland Center on 132.2. When I contact Oakland Center, what is the proper way to announce myself?
My original CFI instructed me to say:

Oakland Center, Tail Number, with you on 132.2

However my new CFI, says that is incorrect and in fact alluded to the idea that perhaps it was ridiculous. His instructions were:

Oakland Center, Tail Number

However, the two times I had used the more abbreviated version above, the controller seemed unsure of my intentions and I had to state (in plain english because I was not sure how to communicate this) "NorCal Approach just sent me over to you".
What is the proper way to handle this situation?

The controllers know which frequency they are talking on. There really is no need to tell them. You should, however, state your present altitude, since they need to verify your mode C indication on first contact. "Oakland Center [callsign] maintaining 3500 ft"

A lot pilots used to use the phrase "with you", but it is non-standard and adds nothing of value to the radio exchange.  It simply wastes (sometimes valuable) air time which could be used by someone else.  As J Hougaard says, you don't need to use the frequency, unless you are calling flight service who monitors multiple frequencies but doesn't broadcast on all of them at the same time.

Also, the phrase "with you" is frequently mocked and is part of a running joke on certain boards populated by professional pilots.   I suggest listening to LiveATC for a busy Center, and seeing if you ever hear that phrase from a top-level pilot.

Agree with your new CFI -- the first advice is out to lunch.

Just about the only time that it's reasonable to say the frequency is when (as occasionally happens) a controller wants you to go to another frequency that she is also handling.  She will say, "N2222, change to my frequency 123.4".  An expedient response is to change to that frequency (without reading it back beforehand), then say "N2222 up on 123.4".  Likewise, there is actually a legit reason for saying "with you" - when you request a temporary frequency change e.g. to Flight Service.  When you're done talking to them you flip back to the original controller and say "N2222 back with you."

By the way, props for just using plain English when you didn't know the expected phraseology.  It might not always sound pro, but ordinary language gets the point across just fine.  They are people on the other end of the radio, after all.

Thanks @pericynthion. While studying to get my license, and feeling the pressure of having to do things just so and exacting, it is often hard to remember that they are people just as you mention. The human feel is far removed and you feel like you're going to the gauntlet with your training... or maybe that's just me. ;)

Saying "with you" indicates a handoff rather than a new contact, which may save ATC time because they only have to scan around the edges of their sector for your data block.  Comments above indicate it's unnecessary or "mocked", but everywhere I've flown (US), every pilot does this, including the pros.
As noted by others, the call should include either current/assigned altitude (if different controller) or frequency (if same controller) as well, and ATIS if applicable.  If you're in a non-radar area, I assume you need to give position and speed too, but I can't say from experience.

In your situation:

Oakland Center, Aircraft Identification, Altitude

For example:

Oakland Center, Cessna 123AB, Level four thousand fife hundred.

See Aeronautical Information Manual, 5-3-1: ARTCC Communications.

b. ATC Frequency Change Procedures.
2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:
(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s assigned altitude preceded by the words “level,” or “climbing to,” or “descending to,” as appropriate; and the aircraft’s present vacating altitude, if applicable.
EXAMPLE-
1. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEVEL (altitude or flight level).
2. (Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), LEAVING (exact altitude or flight level), CLIMBING TO OR DESCENDING TO (altitude of flight level).
NOTE-
Exact altitude or flight level means to the nearest 100 foot increment. Exact altitude or flight level reports on initial contact provide ATC with information required prior to using Mode C altitude information for separation purposes.
(b) When operating in a nonradar environment:
(1) On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft’s present position, altitude and time estimate for the next reporting point.
EXAMPLE-
(Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (altitude), ESTIMATING (reporting point) AT (time).
(2) After initial contact, when a position report will be made, the pilot should give the controller a complete position report.
EXAMPLE-
(Name) CENTER, (aircraft identification), (position), (time), (altitude), (type of flight plan), (ETA and name of next reporting point), (the name of the next succeeding reporting point), AND (remarks).
REFERENCE-
AIM, Position Reporting, Paragraph 5-3-2.

On a flight level, is the correct phraseology LEVEL FLIGHT LEVEL x?

@SimonRichter Yes, but it does sound odd. In level flight regardless of altitude, pilots commonly omit the adjective LEVEL. In the flight levels, this avoids a level level. Roger, Roger?

I'm surprised AIM is not mentioning this, and I am unfamiliar with FAA to search for it, but EASA-land (CAP 413 page 19-20) also requires standing instructions from previous frequency (eg.  assigned heading, speed, rate, or cleared level)

This depends on how you were instructed to change frequencies.
There three main ways this can happen:
Services Terminated ("dropped")

Bugsmasher 12345, radar services terminated, squawk VFR and try Podunk Approach on 123.45 for further advisories.

This happens to folks on VFR flight following when two facilities can't coordinate a handoff because of workload or some other issue. You're not "in the system" anymore so when you call the facility they suggested you're making an initial call like it's the first time you're talking to anyone:

Podunk Approach, Bugsmasher 12345 10 miles west of Smallville VOR three-thousand five-hundred level, request VFR advisories

or one of the many local variations on that request that controllers prefer.
You're going to have to go through the whole process of giving them your information (type, altitude, destination) again, because they have no idea who you are: You're just another VFR blip on the scope.

New Frequency, New Controller ("Handoff")

Bugsmasher 12345 contact Podunk Center on 123.45

This is probably the most common situation when you're talking to ATC: The controller is sending you to another sector that knows you're coming. They have your flight strip and know who you are and what you want, so your check-in is

Podunk Center, Bugsmasher 12345 three-thousand five-hundred, climbing to five-thousand five-hundred.

The new controller needs to verify your Mode C (altitude) squawk which is why that information is included in the call. Level, Climbing or Descending is also important (so if the Mode C is different than what you reported the next time the radar paints you they know why and don't have to consider it a Mode C error).
The controller will then give you an altimeter setting (because they're required to), and your flight continues as it did under the previous controller.

New Frequency, Same Controller

Bugsmasher 12345, change to my frequency 120.5.

This happens for a bunch of reasons - radio coverage issues or a bad RCO antenna for example, or if a controller needs to split the frequency for congestion. When you switch to the new frequency you let the controller know by saying

Podunk Center, Bugsmasher 12345 on 120.5

so they know you've made the frequency change.
This controller has already verified your Mode C (altitude) squawk and issued you an altimeter setting, so they don't need to do that dance again.

When going from center to an approach controller do VFR flights usually give the ATIS letter?

@TomMcW Sometimes controllers will ask if you have it (either Verify you have information Kilo). If you've been asked by an earlier controller, it's a good idea to let them know, otherwise the next controller might end up asking again. (Podunk center, Bugsmasher 12345, 3500, I have  information Kilo)

@hashinclude And sometimes they may tell you that "Lima is current".

I don't think I've ever been given "Contact X, call-sign only." - is that common by you?

@TomMcW if you happen to know that the approach you're talking to is the one that controls your destination airport, yes please, give the ATIS if you have it. If you happen to know that you're just passing through and aren't yet talking to your destination approach, don't bother with the ATIS because they don't care yet.

I would say:
Oakload Center, Cessna 123AB, VFR Level four thousand fife hundred.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review

Can you expand a bit on this? Why mention VFR, for example?

I am a PPL with no instrument. This would be my first radio call after being handed off. You could remove VFR if you are flying IFR. But I read somewhere in AOPA that basically said telling ATC that you are VFR really  helps them.

@Simon - Why does it not provide the answer to this question. I'm confused.

The system has indicators to show if you're VFR or IFR. Reiterating it is not really useful, especially if you're level at a VFR cruising altitude. Perhaps if the controller starts giving IFR-like instructions you may want to confirm, but otherwise assume they know the situation.


text:
Is it normal practice to use 25 degrees of flaps when taking off at max weight in a PA-28-181?
I recently started renting a plane (PA-28-181) from a new flight school and had to get checked out before I had the "OK" to rent.
I had brought 2 family members with me during my checkout because...

They wanted to experience a small plane for the first time
My intentions with the plane were to have the option to fly with a full load of passengers (which I couldn't do in the planes I was used to flying) so I wanted to experience what flying at max gross weight was like.

During the checkout, while in the runup area going through my checklist, the instructor encouraged me to go back through my checklist. Eventually after hearing this suggestion multiple times and not understanding what he was hinting to, he came out and said "You need to set your flaps to 2 notches because we're at max weight".
I hadn't heard this before and I'm not seeing a ton of discussions about this type of thing online. His point was, the flaps would increase lift since we're heavy - that makes sense to me... But they also increase drag.
Note: this was not a short-field takeoff. 5,503ft paved runway, although it was hot (90+ degrees fahrenheit).
So, this leaves me with 3 questions:

Is this correct? When you're on the "heavy" end of the spectrum, should you be deploying flaps?
If so, what would be the proper flap setting at max gross weight?
Since, in this case, the point wasn't to clear an obstacle, would you simply climb out at Vy instead of Vx?

Was this a short field takeoff?

Were you heading out from a relatively short runway? My 177 recommends using one notch of flaps for normal take-offs, but doesn't mean I can't take off without them. The only reason I can think of is to get off the ground and gain speed, just take care when pulling the flaps out so you don't sink.

I updated my question to answer your questions. No, this was not a short-field takeoff.

What does the POH say for this specific aircraft?

That is bad advice. Ask him for the supporting documentation that advises you use flaps simply because you're heavy. Having that much drag in at low speed that close to the ground in a loaded plane with only 180hp is never a good thing unless you REALLY need flaps to depart safely. Using flaps for takeoff simply to use flaps is really bad practice.  Proper setting is flaps up for a normal takeoff.

The PA-28-181 POH I have read says to set first stage of flap (10 degrees) for a normal takeoff, and 2 stages (25 degrees) for a short or soft field takeoff. I've flown PA-28s quite a bit and I've never heard any suggestion of using 25 degrees for a normal takeoff. At maximum weight on a hot day at sea level 5,503ft should be plenty at 10 degrees, even if you are at 4000 ft pressure altitude it should still be sufficient, so I see no reason to set 25 degrees.
Setting 25 degrees for takeoff increases lift at the cost of drag, and risk as you are closer to performance limits. An engine failure on takeoff with 25 degrees of flap will give you less time to get the nose down, and stall characteristics are harsher with more flap.
If the runway was shorter I would see 25 degrees as good advice. There are plenty of light aircraft pilots who don't do performance calculations before they fly, drilling 25 degrees of flap when heavy into them may just save their bacon on a hot day on a short airfield.

I should preface this answer with 2 prudent points

My first flight of a PA-28 (Im unsure the exact model) was a week ago.
I have roughly 250 hrs on Cessna 150/152/172

The answer to all of these sort of questions pretty much always comes down to "What does the POH for this specific aircraft say?". That is the authoritative source of information on operating the aircraft. Another useful source of information on the safe operation of any aircraft is to ask, and seek instruction, from a competent flight instructor who is familiar with an aircraft.
So, there is a fairly good chance that the instructor doing your check ride just knew the aircraft performance well, the airfield well, and the prevailing conditions well and was advising you based on their experience. There is no substitute for experience!
That said, it's easy enough to find a reproduction of a PA28-181 POH online  - you should of course consult the actual POH of the aircraft you are flying but the general handling procedures are usually the same.
The POH linked mentions for standard take off

The [trim] tab set just aft of neutral with the exact setting depending on the loading of the aircraft. Allow the aircraft to accelerate to 48 to 53 KIAS depending on the weight of the aircraft and ease back on the control to rotate to climb attitude.

It goes on to mention a different procedure for short or softfield take off, or a takeoff with obstacle clearance

The flaps should be lowered to 25o (second notch) [...]

So, no mention of flaps for a normal take off even at or near maximum weight. Take from that what you will - but personally I would still be listening to the instructor!

It seems odd that the instructor would just make him go through the checklist again as if he had missed something when it is apparently not in the POH that way. He could run the checklist a hundred times and not come to the conclusion the instructor was getting at

@TomMcW Maybe the checklist just said something along the lines of setting the flaps for takeoff (without specifying what takeoff flaps should be?) Even in that case, though, you're right that it wouldn't have helped, as he'd have interpreted that as meaning "verify flaps 0," while the instructor was interpreting it as "set flaps 25."

@reirab Especially if the whole point of the flight was to be checked out on a new type. It's reasonable to let him know to add extra flaps when heavy, but unreasonable to expect him to know that and act like he's doing something wrong

@TomMcW, the checklist does state "Flaps... set" as the checklist item. That did not help much!

I'd like to add to Jamiec's excellent answer. The attached POH shows that the take-off distance with 25 degrees at maximum gross weight is a few hundred feet less than 0 degrees of flaps. While the current runway may have been of sufficient length for a take-off with 0 degrees of flap, the instructor performing an insurance checkout for the FBO may have wanted to instill the importance of the 2nd notch of flaps for when the pilot rents the airplane on his own and flys out of shorter runways with a full load of passengers.
Apparently for an Piper Cherokee Archer II the increase in drag of 25 degrees of flaps is more than offset by the increased lift allowing the aircraft to lift off sooner.